[Info-vax] [OT] Portable operating systems, was: Re: PowerX Roadmap - Extended beyond 2020

[Dirk Munk]

John Reagan wrote:
> On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 3:26:12 AM UTC-4, Dirk Munk wrote:
>>  wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 3:04:34 PM UTC-4, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> On 2016-04-20, johnwallace4 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Fortunately for VMS, it's been through enough processors that the
>>>>> next migration after x86 will hopefully be a mere matter of
>>>>> cranking the handle. I jest slightly, but which other non-Linux
>>>>> OS has the same proven portability.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Apart from Linux, NetBSD and OpenBSD are the other two traditional
>>>> operating systems I know of which are highly portable.
>>>>
>>>> In the RTOS market, there's RTEMS and QNX which I know exist on
>>>> multiple architectures. (I've just checked the eCos supported
>>>> architecture list and see that has support for a wide range of
>>>> architectures as well.)
>>>>
>>>>> Many months ago, there was a comment here suggesting that 'if'
>>>>> VMS ever migrated to x86-64, it would be good for that migration
>>>>> to also consider the next one as well. At the time there was no
>>>>> real suggestion that nuVMS on x86 would ever happen. It's not
>>>>> there yet, but it's a lot closer than it was back then.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's the two-level hardware (User and Kernel only) issue to tackle
>>>> in that case. I know there's a similar issue in the x86-64 but it
>>>> turns out VSI are using x86-64 specific features to work around that
>>>> issue. (I don't remember the fine details, but do remember thinking
>>>> it was a creative approach; however it is one that relies on x86-64
>>>> functionality.)
>>>>
>>>> Simon.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not quite but you almost remembered it. Yes, we will only be using two of x86's HW access modes and enforcing the other two in the OS. We already do a little of this on Itanium so it is not complete invention this time. However, we are not using anything specific to x86. In fact, we are prototyping this on Itanium to get it debugged before we reach the point of needing it on x86. Note that x86 has four modes but they do not give us the separation that VMS needs.
>>>
>>> Clair
>>>
>>
>> To your knowledge, is there any OS that actually uses those four modes
>> in x86?
>>
>> If not, would it be possible to ask Intel to change the design of x86 is
>> such a way that the separation VMS requires would be achieved? I can
>> imagine that another OS could benefit from that too.
>>
>> Perhaps it's just a fantasy, but a nice one I hope :-)
>
> Not that I'm aware of.  The CPU still has the four modes, but in 64-bit mode the page table entries only have K/U (the older modes have the extra modes in the PTEs).  Somebody from Apple explained the rationale behind the change to me last year at the LLVM conference.  Apparently there was some way to circumvent those mode checks such that S and E (in VMS terms) could get access to K memory.  Instead of fixing the underlying issue, they just removed the extra modes from the PTEs.
>

So effectively the Executive and Supervisor modes are no longer usable?

I just read something that with XEN the Hypervisor runs in Ring 0 
(Kernel), and a guest OS runs in Ring 1.


Puzzling :-)